get_abteilungsdienstplan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well by stating 'Returns raw API data' and showing the complete response structure, including the sparse nature of assigned days. It adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not mention auth requirements or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a detailed JSON example that illustrates the return format. While the JSON block is long, it is directly useful given no output schema, and the structure is clean with each sentence earning its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by providing a complete JSON response layout and explaining the data's granularity. It also covers the prerequisite planningGroupId lookup and the temporal scope. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, despite not covering error scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving a concrete example for planningGroupId ('e.g. 948 for RW 44 Haßloch') and instructing to use get_planungsgruppen to find it, which enriches the schema's bare definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the specific resource 'full team duty roster' scoped to one planning group and month. It also differentiates from siblings by noting it contains every employee's duty codes per day and references get_planungsgruppen for finding the planningGroupId.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs 'Use get_planungsgruppen first to find the planningGroupId', providing a clear prerequisite and naming an alternative tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like get_vakante_duty_details or get_rosters_preload, so it lacks a full when-not explanation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.